Thursday, January 5, 2012

With Barack Obama, it is always a question of stupidity being the main motivator, or the usual "Hate America" found in liberal, Black, and other circles. The man after all bragged he hung around gays, Muslims, Black radicals, feminists, and others in College. Does that sound like any normal young (straight) man you know? At any rate, Obama has announced cuts of about half a million US Army and Marine troops, ending the ability to fight two wars at once while declaring, "the tide of war is receding."

The phrase "the tide of war is receding" is guaranteed to go down in history as one of the top ten stupidest things ever uttered by a Western leader, along with "Peace in Our Time!" and "We can do business with Mr. Hitler."

Obama surely reads his daily briefings. Outlining the dangers from Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, and China and Russia behind them. Obama is either monumentally stupid, a low-IQ Black man who had "smoke blown up his ass" his entire life for the ability to speak in standard English not Ebonics for extended periods of time by disingenuous White Liberals who hailed him a genius, and as a consequence continues to fail miserably at elemental, gut-level tests of competence Bill Clinton could pass, or he simply hates America as the epitome of "evil White people" so much he wants to punish them and America. Of course, he could be both. In any event, his words "the tide of war is receding" will be flung back in his face time and time again. It is guaranteed. Because having a strong military is like having insurance, it is costly until you need it. And you always need it. Not having it invites disaster. A man who rammed through ObamaCare to cover illegal aliens and others with health insurance ought to know that.

Having the ability to fight two major conventional wars at the same time is critical. It is critical because America's current enemies, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China, and Russia are sure to act in a conventional manner to destroy American security objectives dating back to FDR, when America is occupied fully with ONE existing conventional conflict. Which is sure to break out any day now.

Why? Because the international situation is uncertain. And it is uncertain because America is weak, divided, disdains military power, and has been proven without a doubt for the past thirty five years or so to be bullied with little risk. George W. Bush bought America time (though he did not understand what he did, and handled the Iraq War poorly) by making an example of Saddam. To encourage the others. That time is now up.

America faces two fundamental problems. The first is energy scarcity, which can be managed long-term by fracking/drilling in the US and using unconventional techniques, at the expense of Green purity and throwing out green/renewable fantasies of windmills and solar panels powering a modern industrial society. Note: managed. Not solved. Demand for oil and natural gas and coal, too, will keep energy costs high because China, and to a lesser extent India, Brazil, and other developing countries want nice things too, that cost energy: clean water, sewage systems that work, power that goes on and stays on, not just for two intermittent hours a day, hospitals that are clean and sanitary, and a modern industrial base to power all that.

The second problem is related to the first. Food. Zerohedge reports that as Spengler at the Asian Times and PJM has noted, food prices are set to go up indefinitely as arable land declines, petroleum goes up (the two are related, think about it for a minute, no one uses horses to plow fields), and Chinese demand intensifies. Made worse of course by bio-fuel subsidy madness in the US, turning food into fuel.

This is causing a crisis. As Zerohedge points out, in another post, Iran depends on sky-high oil and imports most of its food. Like Tunisia, then Algeria, then Libya, and now Syria, the main cause for discontent is people not being able to eat. As Spengler noted, Chinese peasants will eat before Arabs (and Iranians). Because the Chinese can pay more for food. ZeroHedge notes:

It has been estimated that the Iranian theocracy cannot fund its bloated bureaucracies, military and its welfare state if oil falls below around $40-$45/barrel. Drop oil to $25/barrel and keep it there, and the Iranian regime will implode, along with the Chavez regime in Venezuela.Saber-rattling actually aids the Iranian regime by artificially injecting a "disruptive war" premium into the price of oil: they can make the same profits from fewer barrels of oil.The way to put them out of business is drop the price of oil and restrict their sales by whatever means are available. They will be selling fewer barrels and getting less than production costs for those barrels. With no income, the regime will face the wrath of a people who have become dependent on the State for their sustenance and subsidized fuel.

Of course, easier said than done. China has lots of money, needs to keep the power on for its own internal stability, and will reliably prop up the price of oil to keep feeding its people, and paying for their food. Rarely is something simple easily attainable. Like losing weight or playing a musical instrument, it takes work and struggle.

This is precisely WHY the US needs a military that can fight two conventional wars at the same time. Because regimes like Iran and North Korea are hit hard by rising food prices, as well as Pakistan, and want War as a release from forces that threaten to overturn them as in Egypt, and Tunisia, and Libya, and probably Syria. No one wants to end like say, Khadaffi, stabbed in the buttocks with a knife, to death. There for everyone to glory in, on Youtube.

Thus, of course Iran wants War. They crave it, as the only thing that can push oil prices high enough to pay for food, and at the same time allow them unfettered ability to kill all domestic political opponents. It does not matter if they take terrible losses, they've had them before. A swarming attack, against a carrier battle group, preceded by days of false moves and provocations to wear down attention and attentiveness, can easily sink a carrier. Many in Iran think that doing so will cause the US to simply turn tail and run. Under Barack Obama, they may be right.

At the very least, they can smuggle out oil at $200 a barrel, closing the Straight of Hormuz through mobile missile strikes and mines and such, perhaps also launching attacks on Iraq taking out its oil facilities and even the Saudis and Kuwaitis and Omanis. China, and many other countries, would be happy to buy oil at those prices under those circumstances.

Meanwhile, North Korea starves to death, under a new leader even more despised and incapable than the last. One who is young, prone to torturing small animals as a child, and fat and unattractive at twenty eight. Kim Jong Eun has one play, only and that is war. War with South Korea and the US. Not to win, but just not to be overthrown.

Particularly if the US is occupied elsewhere, say the Persian Gulf, and thus all sorts of gains can be seized, even perhaps ALL of South Korea and even Japan. You don't have to be a giant if your enemies are all midgets. Neither country has much of a military, much less military age young men, much less any ability to sustain a long, ugly war. Without the US ready to fight, prospects look a lot better than ending up like Khadaffi. Since Jong Eun is even less loved than the Colonel.

Likely at this point, both Iran and North Korea are playing a game of "after you, Alphonse." Since the second mover has the advantage -- no US forces to confront him.

Obama's cuts to missile defense, his ongoing cuts to nuclear forces, and a reliance on drones (easily hacked, as even Iran was able to do) is a fantasy strategy. Since the US from FDR onward has relied on US Naval and Air dominance in the Persian Gulf to control the world price of oil. To the US liking. And disadvantage in particular of Russia, which has nothing else but oil to offer.

Russia and China are sure to challenge the US dominance, if for no other reason than to order the world to their advantage and the US disadvantage. This is normal politics, Russia can only survive in a world where oil is hideously expensive. China can only survive the onslaught of all those men without any female counterparts because of selective sex abortions, and a slowing economy beset by corruption and cronyism, by dominance of neighbors and ultimately the entire Pacific. Otherwise all those resources (including yes women) don't flow into China to keep the social peace and the folks at the highest levels end up like Khadaffi. No one wants a knife up their ass.

Nor are the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, the North Koreans, and the Pakistanis (who are fully nuclear, have a disintegrating populace and state, are beset by Jihadis, and under siege from rising food prices) stupid. They know that a limited, cut to the bone American Military might not even be able to win in one place, and surely will not in two or more. Hence the move to create two or more crisis by pouring fuel on any regional crisis set afire.

In my opinion, at some level Obama understands this and welcomes this. All those decades of "hate America" along with the "hate Whitey" rhetoric of Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan (a frequent visitor to the White House according to logs, unsurprising since Obama was a neighbor of Farrakhan's in Chicago) had to take their intellectual toll. At some level, Obama constantly strives to make all those sermons he heard from Wright come true. That is Barack Obama. You don't spend twenty years listening to Rev. Wright (and likely Louis Farrakhan) and not want to make their dreams come true.

Ultimately that is a stupid move, since leaders rarely prosper by punishing their people. Nor is the model of most Muslim tribal nations (raise up a tribe of favored few, like Saddam's Tikritis, and punish the rest) likely to succeed in a nation as big and as powerful (in the sense that ordinary people are not beaten dogs, but individuals jealous of their liberties, mostly) as America. Obama's likely destination is impeachment and conviction, with a long jail time as an object lesson. Being the first President to deliberately lose critical wars in disastrous fashion that degrades life for the average American (oil and food at unaffordable levels for years until drilling and growing are refashioned) pretty much guarantees that. But for years, Obama was never punished politically, socially, or economically for associating with odious figures like Wright and Farrakhan, so it is no surprise that he deliberately wants to harm America.

The alternative of course is not endless Wars for Democracy in Muslim lands. But rather a military able to dominate the Pacific and Persian Gulf at the same time. Withdrawing troops from Europe is a minor savings, but closing bases there leads to a lack of forward positioning in the area and increases US dependence on … Israel. As the only friendly country in the area with ports, airbases, and a population able to support force projection. While Germany, Italy, and England are not close to the Middle East, they are closer than Arkansas or Georgia, and provide "good enough" ability to stage and marshall forces bound for the Middle East. While troops can and should be withdrawn from many areas, the bases should remain.

Drones, easily hacked and dependent on an increasingly vulnerable satellite system (now even Iran has the ability to shoot down satellites, joining Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan) are no substitute for US air power with the best air superiority fighter (the F-22, canceled) and the best ground support airplane (the A-10, canceled). Cyberwarfare is no match for US naval forces able to punish enemies and control the seas (including keeping the Straights of Hormuz open for shipping). These all cost, and the costs seem high. Until say, Iran and North Korea and China and Pakistan (and perhaps even Venezuela) all launch attacks hoping to achieve regional dominance cheap and easy at the US's expense.

If you liked your life with gas at $5 a gallon, wait until it reaches $10 per gallon. See how much social peace is bought then. The US too, is not immune from the social changes around the globe of Chinese peasants eating a lot better than they did before.

33 comments:

This is one of the better posts. I have always hoped that BHO was not of the 'hate America/hate Whitey' model but it seems that is a strong possibility. Bad actors in the world (Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc.) are always hoping for a chance to dethrone the US from its position (and its not as if there would not be quite a bit of support state side from the liberal media).

Well keep the military and dispose of the welfare state. Can't have it all so what's more important?

Republicans are no different. They'll just give away power to the elite yet the issue of debt will still be there.

People are oblivious to the fate of western society that it's truly a sad statement of how dysfunctional people are in relation to keeping up with what's happening. America is rotting because it's society is and don't worry so much about exterior foes taking us down. Worry more about the feminist trash, the Marxist, and the big banking/Federal Reserve industry and the worthless Fiat money it prints because that alone is house of cards that will come down all on it's own. They always do.

No one wants to change well this the cancer of the past what, 60 years has metastasized and chemo ain't curing it. China, Russia, Allah don't even need to lift a finger. Americans have already done it for them.

Until the populace as a whole realizes the "two party" system is really one big party with two slightly different views, it will never change.

If you're pissed at the cuts in the military but not the obscene level of debt that is brought on not only by the big military industrial complex but a huge entitlement state, a huge population of UNIONIZED government workers who have better benefits than those in the private sector, well your priorities are askew. To hear of the regulations one in the private sector has to deal with, the perverted level of government involvement in business, why on Earth do you think putting a someone who is really no different than Obama is going to change things? A Romney, a Santorum, a Gingrich are not any different from Obama in regards to the level of big government and why it cannot sustain itself no matter which party is in power.

Realize one thing. Politicians will not shrink government or ever do what's right for the nation because it also shrinks their own power. Hence why we are crumbling under the weight of very bad policies under both so called parties.

Modern missiles can shred carrier group before it can get in firing range of any strategic target. The future is cheap expendable drones, subs and guided missiles.

Just because one drone was hacked doesn't mean they're useless. How many thousands of bombers and fighter jets have been shot down? There's no need for hundred million dollar F-35s. Not with modern guided missiles.

Fighter jets are merely flying platforms for launching missiles. You don't need super maneuverable high caliber fighter jets for WWII era dogfights. For a the cost of a single F-35 you can black out the sky with 1000+ predator drones.

Even if GPS is jammed or shut down, computer technology is sufficiently advanced that the drones can navigate using astronomical guidance or surface topography. This software can be developed for far less than the cost of buying more F-35s and the carriers to support them.

Fuck the rest of the world. Our debt to GDP is 100% and will be close to 200% in a decade. We can't afford a big military and welfare state and god knows the American people won't vote against their welfare state.

We need to pull back and fix our own god damn problems and let the world do what it wills.

To those of us in the rest of the Western world, what seems plain but unanswered is why the US is so determined to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions, but no-one else seems to care.

Either only the US knows a threat when it it sees one, Americans have a keener sense of survival than all the other Western nations, or there is some other motivation. This last seems more likely.

The U.S. has the monopoly on global military reach. It is a business, employing large numbers of people and supporting many corporations. There are an awful lot of people who make a living out of US involvement in war. Even McDonalds seem to have the army catering business cornered.

Maybe that's enough to support its ongoing taste for military adventurism. But it ain't good enough for those who lose sons and daughters to keep this business in the black.

For those of us loosely aligned with the US but forever in the dark as to its next move - a quiet word: why are you so afraid where no-one else seems to care? Especially when other nations are far closer to this "threat"? And why are the only people likely to ridicule this line of questioning American?

It is no longer a question of we might be invaded and conquered but when will we be. It is a question of how many months do we have.

We, or most of us, realize there is going to be a massive economic collapse; that we are in the midst of the collapse now and the government is lying to us regarding the extent. We have seen the laws and the Constitution become nullities over the past three years: the NDAA and SOPA ended the latter: the unconstitutional recess appointment was just making the point.

The question becomes not how do we survive the economic collapse but how do we survive the invasion?

Realize one thing. Politicians will not shrink government or ever do what's right for the nation because it also shrinks their own power.

This has never made sense to me. Elites don't seem to care about their collective power. Only their personal power. That's why they're selling America down the river. That's why they don't care about sacrificing parts of their herd to AA, immigration, etc.

No, the more plausible explanation is that the political class are simply whores doing what the "special interests" (business, super-rich oligarchs, unions, etc.) want done. They won't do things like shrink the gov't not because of class interests, but personal ones; their own careers will suffer.

"Particularly if the US is occupied elsewhere, say the Persian Gulf, and thus all sorts of gains can be seized, even perhaps ALL of South Korea and even Japan. You don't have to be a giant if your enemies are all midgets. Neither country has much of a military, much less military age young men, much less any ability to sustain a long, ugly war."

South Korea has the 6th largest military in the world. 653,000 active personnel and 3,200,000 reservists. North Korea has about double the manpower, but manpower doesn't win modern wars. NK is technologically obsolete, and their navy and air force are particularly weak. SK troops have better equipment and training too.

As for Japan, NK would have a difficult time invading them even if they hadn't just fought a war against SK. Japan also has defenses against ballistic missiles.

Finally, what's to stop the US from just sending NK back to the stone age with ballistic missiles, even nuclear ones?

DR: "As the War Nerd demonstrates aircraft carriers are sitting ducks in any future naval war."

The War Nerd has no idea what he's talking about. I'd sooner listen to someone whose military knowledge is based on video games.

njartist: "It is no longer a question of we might be invaded and conquered but when will we be. It is a question of how many months do we have."

Try not to confuse Modern Warfare 2 and Homefront with real life.

Anonymous: "So Whiskey, are you willing to die to keep starving North Koreans out of South Korea? Are you willing to send a son to die for that? Not me bud. Stop drinking the neocon koolaid."

Defending South Korea is a worthy cause, and war in the region isn't going to help the US at all.

Well, consider the fact that the military is primarily a gov't thing and it starts to make sense; the oligarchs and corporations can outsource everything not under the purview of the gov't. Once we've outsourced everything possible to China, what do we have left? The AGMM. In that sense, I kinda agree with Whiskey on maintaining a strong military; sure, so-and-so can make a better microwave, but we can bomb them back into the stone age at will.

I'm just not as enamored of the regime as Whiskey is. I want it to go, whereas he wants to prop it up. And I know something has to pay for the military, and once you've outsourced everything, there's nothing left to tax.

South Korea or Japan could take NK with one arm tied behind their back. The Japanese Self Defence Forces may not be up to imperial standards and have a deceptive name but they're the second strongest fleet in the Pacific.

NK can flatten Seoul and kill lots of South Koreans, and that's about it.

I see a lot of misconceptions here about the vulnerability of our naval forces. The best information we have comes from WWII. Here is an account of carriers lost.

http://ffhiker.tripod.com/index-7.html

These ships were not built to take the punishment but to get there and strike. The larger ones took a large number of big hits and many were finally sunk by our own navy after determining that they were total losses.

The greatest vulnerabilities were fuel and ordinance. Current carriers are nuclear - no volatile fuel. The only fuel they carry is aviation fuel. This fuel is protected the same as modern combat aircraft fuel tanks - bladders and fire suppression. An M1A1 tank crew can survive even if its ordinance cooks off. The same technology is used to protect the ordinance that a modern carrier packs.

Trying to sink a carrier is like trying to sink a sponge. At combat readiness (general quarters) there more than 1,500 watertight compartments. It would take many hits with BIG warheads to sink one. The ordinance available on missiles is relatively lightweight, typically about 300 lbs HE for the larger ones. The Silkworm warhead is slightly over 1,000 lbs.

Ah, torpedoes you say. The Iranians have three "quiet" diesel electric submarines. Quiet is only an advantage against passive sonar. Active sonar is another story altogether. I do not have any non-public information about our sonar capabilities but I do have some experience seismic imaging. A number of explosive charges are detonated on the surface and sensors record the resulting sound waves. The sounds are then computer processed to provide a "map" of what's down below. With GPS and modern computers a carrier task force undoubtedly can see what's down there quite easily.

Let's hope the Iranians aren't completely stupid when contemplating military action. Though I wouldn't count on it.

Why would I want North Korea not in control of the NE Asian shipping lanes? Because to allow that to happen puts the USA at risk.

If say, the Lord's Resistance Army puts the mining company (I forget the name) that is a crony of Obama's at risk in its investments in Uganda, that is no interest to me. If on the other hand shipping in and around the NE Asian lanes (and very likely the Bering Sea) is controlled by the Kim dynasty, that's to my disadvantage. Not only do all sorts of investments and employment go belly up in the US, but access to customers for US food becomes dicey (other than North Korea) and so too the ability to ship petroleum and fishery products out of the Bering Sea.

If the US does not dominate that area to our advantage, someone else WILL to our disadvantage.

Yes it costs money. So does insurance. The military should be configured to DETER fights. By being so strong as to prevent people from fighting with you. This is something every guy pumping iron understands. People did not pick fights with Lou Ferrigno.

Iran has basically "double dog dared" the US to send a carrier through? Why? Because they want to sink it. Figuring best case, Obama runs away since he's on their side. Worst case, they'll get hit like in 1984 with entirely sustainable damage and use that to kill their domestic enemies.

As to why the US perceives a threat from Iran where others "do not" it all comes down to oil prices and will.

Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and a few other petro regimes want sky high oil prices. China is for the moment OK with that, figuring they sewed up enough oil resources on their buying spree.

The US NEEDS cheap oil. Iran/Russia NEED hyper-expensive oil. THAT forms the basis of the conflict over Iran's nukes. If say, Chile got nukes or Australia, no one would care (well the Chinese would about Australia). Iran using a nuke shield to shut down petroleum in the Gulf and affect the marginal price of oil DOES matter intensely to the US, on either a recession or ME food riot situation.

As far as doing anything about it, the Europeans have let their military atrophy for two reasons: one the point after Suez that only the US/Soviet nuclear arsenal mattered, and the other that it was cheaper to rely on Uncle Sam. Iran has made it clear that it considers itself the "protector" of European muslims and will act so when it gets nukes. This scares the hell out of the Europeans but as with Hitler no one has the will to do much about it.

Anonymous: "Supercop, since you didnt answer my question but rather declared war in Korea a "worthy cause", I assume you mean that you're all for it as long as you don't have to do the bleeding."

I'm not American, but I wouldn't mind fighting on South Korea's behalf. And if Americans are willing to bleed for useless shitholes like Iraq and Afghanistan, doing the same for SK should be a non-issue.

America's military is "whiter" than it's civilian population. The combat troops, as opposed to support pogues, are damned near pure White working and middle men, with a smatering of latinos. The nonsensical libtard meme that the "elites are sending the minorities to die in imperial wars" has been a load of shit since it was invented.

We must get rid of the welfare state, since it rewards and perpetuates sloth and self destruction. This is disproportionately NAM, but many of those types would be forced rise to the best of their abilities if they were not given the crutch of welfare.

Money (intelligently)spent on defense rewards and perpetuates all those White middle class beta types who are the backbone of Western society.

I think what Spengler actually said was that Chinese pigs will eat before Arabs. And they will, because a more affluent Chinese population wants to eat more meat. And they have absolutely none of our hypercivilized angst about how many pounds of grain it takes to raise one pound of meat. They mean to get what they want, and couldn't care less about starving barbarians on the other side of the world.

With Barack Obama, it is always a question of stupidity being the main motivator, or the usual "Hate America" found in liberal, Black, and other circles. The man after all bragged he hung around gays, Muslims, Black radicals, feminists, and others in College. Does that sound like any normal young (straight) man you know?

Yawn. The usual wingnut crapola. You're off my reading list before you even started to be on it. And no, I'm not a fellow traveler, or whatever you'd call it.

Yes, I'm being rude, but I'm tired of people spewing bullshit in the name of truth, and I'm afraid some dumb kid might actually believe you.

First, the War Nerd is too impressed by the shiny new guns he's seen to notice the people in the much more boring, much more profitable business of selling body armor. Carriers are not going to go away any time soon, because combat requires actually being able to hurt the other guy. Hard to do that if none of our planes can reach them.

Second, the difference between a fighter getting shot down and a drone getting hacked is pretty fucking fundamental; When a fighter gets shot down, it removes one asset from our column. When a drone gets hacked, it removes one asset from our column, and adds one asset to the enemy's. This neglects, of course, that drones can also get shot down.

Third, Drones are not significantly cheaper than fighters. An MQ-1 predator costs about 6 to 7 million dollars. The final, full-scale production cost of the F-35 is expected to be around 100 million. We could hardly get the 'thousands and thousands' of predators for each fighter that you claim. You also fail to factor in that the F-35 can carry orders of magnitude more ordnance. (The predator is limited to about three hundred pounds of bombs or other stores, a fraction of that carried by a typical combat helicopter. The F-35 has a weapons capacity of 18,000 pounds)

Missiles are not significantly cheaper than fighter strike missions. They're just as, if not more, vulnerable to getting shot down, and they're much, much more expensive per pound of ordinance delivered. They're also single-purpose, and single-use. They can't do recon, they can't protect friendly ground forces from air attack, and they can't provide on-call close air support.

We've already got the technology to operate precision strikes without GPS. We can't, however, command drones from half the world away without clean, high-bandwidth satellite data links. Remove those, and all of your fancy drones are little more than flying targets. Guess what one of the first projects of every third-world space program has been for the past decade.

Rationalization of cowardice. This post, like most of the posts on this site, are from an intelligent person who has succumbed to fear. He feels is constantly under attack, from "the left," from "blacks, Muslims, Asians, non-whites;" groups of people he--irrationally--considers innately incompetent and stupid but also intelligent enough to secretly implement complex and destructive plans.

You are a coward, sir. You try to justify your fears as rational, but you're just a pussy coward. You're inept and scared of women, you're scared of men, you distrust those with different beliefs, appearances, purposes, and goals because you think they will harm you (but it makes you feel better when you rationalize your fear by saying that they are 'stupid' and incompetent; like a kid rationalizes his fear of ghosts by saying that they can't hurt him because he prays, or because "ghosts have no physical powers"), and you're an intellectual outcast because your ideas and arguments are emotionally driven and intellectually dishonest.

At "Price" : No argument whatsoever, just name calling of the usual leftist variety. If you cannot challenge it, "shout it down". At least you didn't resort to "racist or nazi"...but at least you seem to know that either of those designations are not synonymous with "coward" as you so sub-literately put it... You are just another indoctrinated self-hating liberal, sir.